10/6/2004

Digital/HDTV news

If you are not already aware of this, the FCC set a mandate several years ago that by 2006, all TV broadcasting would shift to digital. For those wondering what that means, I'll explain briefly:


Currently, we have analog and digital broadcasting. Analog broadcasting is what's been around for many many years, and enables up to about 80 channels to be broadcast into homes over 'standard' coaxial cable. When most of the US "got cable" in the 70s and 80s, they got analog cable.

Digital broadcasting uses the same mechanism for delivery, but the entire signal is sent digitally - 1s and 0s. This means there is no potential for snow or fuzziness, as you are either receiving the signal or NOT receiving the signal, there is nothing in between.

Because of this, digital broadcasting offers the potential for a better quality signal. Also, digital broadcasts can carry high-definition (HDTV) signals. Finally, digital broadcasting uses the broadcast frequencies more efficiently, allowing more channels to be sent into the home (one of the many many reasons why the FCC wants the transition).

Important note: not all digital broadcasts were created equally. Some look better than others. The same is true for HDTV.

Bottom line: while digital broadcasts will almost definitely be better quality than analog broadcasts, there is no guarantee to consumers that every time you watch a "digital TV" it will look awesome.

Anyhow, the state of things today is that we aren't quite there. 11M homes have digital sets. Why? Digital TV sets or cable boxes tend to be expensive, and for some of the reasons above, consumers aren't really rushing out the door to buy them.

My biggest complaint of all this falls onto the HDTV industry. I see stuff at trade shows that looks incredible, ranging from nature shows to Hawaiian Tropics swimsuit contests (yum), and I see commercials on air from NBC and Best Buy (among others), all showing off how great it looks.

When done right, HDTV looks unbelievably good. The rest of the time? It just looks... better. But not great. And frankly, until there is a lot more great content, there is a lot of disappointment when using HD services. Why spend $10 per month (or more) just to get better quality West Wing?

permanent link